The vast majority of debate on abortion is in the form of rhetoric, and ideological extremes. But, if we assume that abortion is bad, is it possible to significantly reduce its prevalence in society? Illegal abortion has happened throughout society, killing thousands of grown women. Can we stop this?

Recently, a blatantly offensive, and quite frankly, shockingly bad, piece of media has gained viral attention around the world, due to its deptiction of the Islamic prophet Mohammed as a slovenly, abusive, drunkard (simply depicting the prophet is considered blasphemous in Islam). This has caused thousands of people to protest around the Middle East. In Egypt, thousands rallied around the US embassy, where they vandalise it, and burnt the American flag there. In Libya, a peaceful protest was taking place, when a small group of terrorists attacked the embassy. They killed three security staff, and the US ambassador died from smoke inhalation. There have also been protests in Iran, Qatar, Yemen, Tunisia, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and probably others. This has resulted in a large political fallout, both between the US and other nations, as well as within the US. Presidental candidate Romney jumped onto a statement issued by the US Cario embassy (often percieved to be trying to defuse the situation, and prevent further violence), and rejected their apology for a constituents 'abuse' of free speech.  This leads to a further debate - to what extent should individuals use their free speech, where it could insult others, even cause violence to others? http://www.aljazeera.com/video/middleeast/2012/09/20129130543708779.html

When Obama came into office, the US debt was about 10.6 trillion dollars. Now, after about 3.75 years, it's up to 16 trillion dollars. Many blame Obama for this, but is it true? While in office, Obama has raised spending at an anual rate of 1.4% - slower than any president in the recent past (link). However, revenues have fallen massively, due to a recession already in play when he was inaugurated. A stimulus bill was passed to try and reduce these effects (included in the spending growth rate), but this was criticized as being too small. There is a widespread belief that the huge amount of US debt is Obama's fault, and no one elses. But how well founded is this belief really?

Both of thes groups are next to unheard of in US politics. So I was wondering, who was it harder, for making it into the world of US politics?

And don't say 'there shouldn't be any tax', or something on that line of thinking, this is a question of economics within the current state of law.

Why is it that PAC's run negative ad's into excess, why people vote for someone because they are 'not the other person' about half of the time, and you view candidates as 'lesser evil's'? What happened to standing behind someone you support, and think will benefit the country? Why is the entire political landscape so bitter?

In a hypothetical society, there are only two groups of people, each with a distinguishing feature, that sets them apart (doesn't matter what it is, but it is natural and permanent). For some reason, group A believes that they are better than group B, and whilst group B have done nothing wrong to them, group A works with the government to actively discriminate against group B, for their own self gain. This goes on for a long period of time, until eventually, despite being equal in number, group A has 90% of the resources of the society, whilst group B has but 10%. Finally, the government realises how unjust this system is, and puts policies into place which guarentee equality for all. But, is it just that group A keeps all of their wealth? Should action be taken to make the two groups truly equal once more, or should nothing be done at all? What would want to happen in that situation? - Just to confirm, this action would be taken immediately after the equality policies are put into place. And also, for anyone wondering, I'm not comparing this to any modern dilema, there is no true equivalent. I'm simply interested in what people think would be fair.

How can (some of) you claim that the same God that flooded the world, killing hundreds of thousands, is perfectly moral?

Only for those that believe that abortion should be illegal (and that abortion = murder).

No dictionairy definitions, no looking anything up, just write what you think.